Sure a soldier gets a medal for valor while the people he murdered get put in graves and their families have to figure out how to survive. Yup, your Government State Mass Murderers doing good work every day.
Actually if you boil the ice caps you'll release water vapor into the atmosphere which is a much more dangerous greenhouse gas than C02... of course you'll get the best of both since the boiling of that much water will take a lot of coal or trees or naturals gas being burned also creating some C02... but the water vapor created will really warm the planet up quickly.
The government thinks it's doing good while most of the time it's not doing good at all.
It's a very bad idea to let the government folks have any more tracking capabilities than they already have.
Every little cookie crumb you let them track about you gives them more power over your lives. Before you know it they have the entire cookie jar to themselves, including the chocolate chips of freedom! Don't let the cookie monster get all your cookies. Bake a new batch and keep them to yourself and your family and friends. The government has enough cookies.
When you "BELIEVE" science you're just another religion.
In fact, open source science is the BEST and ONLY WAY to avoid science from becoming the new religion as it has, for example, in the climate debates.
The scientific method is the tool for vetting the works of science and if the work of science is closed and secret and kept close to the scientists chests by refusals to share their data, methods, source codes, procedures, etc... then their work can't be verified and might as well be works of fiction just like those of any religious cleric or priest or nutter.
If you can't take others vetting your scientific work then maybe you don't belong in science?
Open Source Science raises the bar and will in the long run improve the quality of the science that is done. Some progress is being made, much more needs to be done.
Opening Science is the way forward, the path through the darkness, the endarkenment of closed source science.
If's it's paid by the public purse it must be OPEN data that anyone can see and audit.
Science is based upon the notion of being able to validate or invalidate in whole or in part the "claims" made by various "hypotheses" put forward.
When you "BELIEVE" science you're just another religion.
When you can't audit the work of scientists whose work is the basis of public policy then you and the public are being endarkened and kept excluded. But why? For what or whose agenda?
As long as the data, the methods, the algorithms, the statical analysis, the step by step procedures are kept secret the work is suspect to scientific fraud.
Have the guts to open your science to the light of day, it will in the end be better for it once it's vetted by more eyes and brains and math nuts and others poking holes in it.
ANY AND ALL CLAIMS MADE BY PEOPLE WHO KEEP THEIR SCIENCE CLOSED AND SECRET is suspect of FRAUD. What are they hiding? Are they simply embarrassed to admit that they might be wrong? That they've made mistakes? That they are afraid that others might gain an edge in the grant process and shut them out of funding?
Open Source Science is the way forward through the darkness into the light that empower verification and falsification and thus progress EITHER way!!!
"The meaning of the world is the separation of wish and fact." - KURT GÖDEL
"According to Peirce's doctrine of fallibilism, the conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of truth".
A guiding principle for accepting claims of catastrophic global events, miracles, incredible healing, invisible friends, or fill in the blank is:
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
"Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness." - Alfred Korzybski
"Science is a search for basic truths about the Universe, a search which develops statements that appear to describe how the Universe works, but which are subject to correction, revision, adjustment, or even outright rejection, upon the presentation of better or conflicting evidence." - James Randi
"Hypotheses are nets: only he who casts will catch." - Novalis
Actually that's a very good point, one of the best in this entire inane discussion...
If you want your software protected keep working on it! Nice.
Stale code become public domain and anyone is REALLY FREE to do what they want with it.
This is much like the one year ban on publishing data from science missions that sometimes happens... it let's the team of scientists who did the science get their papers written and then a year later every other scientist in the world gets access.
However, people could game the system by making bogus changes to keep a program copyrighted... so it's bound to fail... unless...
Ok, so the Public Domain isn't FREE Stallman? Clearly you're a total nut job Stallman!
Yes, you'd lose your base for enforcing the GPL with a five year copyright limit. Then the software would be free from your onerous restrictions that you've imposed upon it.
However, the PUBLIC DOMAIN IS FREEDOM BEYOND anything the GPL or Stallman would offer.
It's interesting that truly free licenses based upon Copyright such as the BSD variants of licenses (BSD, ISC, MIT, Apache,...) wouldn't really be affected as they pretty much rely upon the good nature of the vast majority of people to share rather than forcing rules upon all just because a few might not want to share.
Public Domain is MORE FREE in every way than the GPL!
Awesome place. Beautiful desolation. Cheap prices. Vacant land. Good views of Earth. Historic properties. Once in a lifetime chance to own a piece of history.
The lamson project has a supposedly accidental VIRAL PAYLOAD AT http://launchpad.net/lamson in the file lamson-0.9.4.tar.gz with 7 copies of the "Virus identified I-Worm/Mydoom.BE";"Infected" virus and 1 "Trojan horse Dropper.Generic_c.GH" trojan horse reported by AVG.
Confirmed by hand.
Reported to Zed Shaw already who claims it was an accidental inclusion in spam test data.
It sounds like your company is highly conservative and being VERY VERY careful with any GPL'd code. Very wise given the fanaticism and legal capabilities of the GPL commune leadership.
You CAN USE GPL programs all you want in a company!!! They do it all the time!
It's when it comes to making changes that are "distributed" that the issues with the GPL come up. That's when it's important to be wise and to clench yourself tight to avoid being probed by the GNU Commune leadership.
Of course one can put a condom around the GPL code, meaning that if it's running in it's own process space and you only make minor changes to it that you don't care if the competition has then do so and share the changes made. If it's a library under GPL code a wrapper so it's a CLI program and use it that way, sharing the CLI program of course under the GPL (and BSD if you like). That's what a condom wrapper does, it protects you from the GPL Viral Infection.
Of course you'll see in my earlier posting that I did say that a company can get a direct license from the authors of a program that is under the GPL assuming that all the authors can agree. In Zed Shaw's case it's likely that he is the only author of his email program so getting a commercial non-GPL license isn't a problem for a company as he wants to do that.
The point is that as a strategy for making money putting stuff out under the GPL may not be such a good idea since commercial licensing alone might be better.
Of course he can do whatever the F he wants since it's his code and his choices and if they work for him all the better for him.
I just don't think it's the best strategy for maximizing profits to him.
I'm working on a number of projects including a new highly evolved version/implementation of an existing programming language. Now this language isn't the end in itself, the apps that I'm building are the goal that will make the money. The language itself may very well end up being under a BSD style license or a modified BSD with Commercial Use fees. However, a pure BSD license might still be better to build a community around the language as it will offer capabilities not available elsewhere.
It seems to me if one is able to let ones innovations and hard work out into the world for "free" then let it be free without restrictions. This excludes releasing under GPL restrictive style.
If one wants "control" and "fame" and "wealth" from ones software then choosing the GPL might be one of the strangest ways to accomplish that, certainly control and fame can come but wealth is a different thing.
If you rope in the vulture capitalists and do a reverse raking successfully without producing real world results then I suppose all the power to you or him but isn't that just a tiny Madeoff scheme?
When it comes to making money I prefer to keep the competitive advantage of keeping the source code closed for maximum advantage against the competition. It works for google and microsoft and oracle and... and... and... and... and... and the list goes on.
Of course Google does release some systems open source but those are designed to set standards to make Google's overall competitive edge better. For example, Chrome browser is a classic example of a power program being in the BSD license maximizing an advantage for Google. It's BSD so that people adopt components of it such as the Native Client API (that replaces the antiquated Netscape Plugin API). This NCapi will only reach maximum adoption if all the browser companies provide it. Plus other reasons.
So, BSD is a viable approach.
In one successful case of BSD having an influence is that Microsoft adopted the BSD TCP/IP stack source code directly! This enabled Microsoft to join the standards that everyone was using quickly and effectively so that boxes running their software could interconnect better.
It's NOT always about the source code freedom once adopte
You have the software, and it's GPLed, and as long as you're a rock solid open source project who releases their code you are free to use it and do what you want with it. I love open source, but companies? Companies are going to have to pay from now on. That's how economics works. If it's good enough for you to use, why then it's good enough for you to pay for it.
I don't see how the GPL will help you with corporations dude. They'll avoid paying you cashola by providing the updates (if any) that they make to the code per the terms of the GPL.
Unless you add new terms above and beyond the GPL it won't help you dude.
So while I applaud your attempt to be "recognized" for your work by forcing the rules of the communistic GPL upon everyone it won't get the job of getting you the cashola done. If your lame email program is any good you might get a good reputation and that might get you work but that's quite indirect.
Now if you're planning on using the TOUGH rules of the GPL to be a carrot to businesses by saying that ONLY THEY will get the license where they don't have to follow the GPL but your extraspecial spicy commercial license fine, but they - as noted above - can always avoid that by using the GPL'd version and putting a Free Market License Condom around your viral GPL and then do what the heck they want with it (using it that is with minimal updates).
"Open source to open source, corporation to corporation" is a nice motto and I actually like it myself, but the GPL won't get you there dude. What would is a new license that is quite specific about your terms of doing business.
You seem pissed off, Zed, that when you put software out under permissive licenses that people used it. Well that's what is supposed to happen. It's clear that you don't have the free license spirit in you at all. It seems that you value recognition which is fine and part of your psychological makeup.
There is a movie with the title, "Born Free", where "a real-life couple who raised an orphaned lion cub to adulthood, and released her into the wilds of Kenya" and wonder if they will ever see "their" lions again, will they return?
It seems, Zed, that in your case your code isn't born free but is born out of your mind with hooks back to you, born out of your mind with loads of restrictions. All fine. As you said it's your right. I'm glad that you are finding your stand to take with your software projects and making the choices that you think will lead you towards what you want. I just think that given what you wrote the GPL isn't going to provide the answers unless you change the GPL towards your own ends twisting it's tortured soul (the GPL) towards commercially required payments to you.
So with Zed software isn't Born Free but is born out of his mind bending the tortured GPL towards goals that it's Commune Dictator didn't provide for. All that is fine. It's your choice.
I'd simply have gone for a commercial license that is free for personal use and any BSD like license can be adapted for that, after all the foundation of all these licenses (except the Public Domain non license) is Copyright which Zed has over his sole works to do with entirely as he pleases.
Good luck running a muck of the commune dude. May your success bring you fortune and fame you so desire.
BSD isn't for control freaks, it's for the Born Free crowd!
GPL IS for control freaks of the Maoist bent. Total Control of all aspects of how your software is used.
Commercial is for people who want to make a living. Enjoy Life.
Public Domain is for those that don't want any restrictions at all and for those that want to be beyond the rules of society.
Anyone with half a brain or two times your brain capacity should know that saying "B is ten times less than the cost of A" means "B is one tenth the cost of A"!
Just like someone says "A is ten times more than B" you know they mean "A:= B * 10".
Your just too literal minded ScanMan/RainMan ScentCone dude. English is a flexible language. Take you math nerd hat off for a change and a challenge in comprehening what others are saying to you rather than imposing your New World Order unto them.
Now all you need to do is to ask a clarifying question to make sure your "translation" into your narrowly focused math-nerd version of English meets your perfect way of talking. If they go yeah, that's what they meant then you've passed the primary Powel Janulus [who spoke over 80 human languages and was fluent in 50+ of them] test of communication, understanding others need not require perfect speach! You then become less of a math nerd to the outside world ScanMan/RainMan ScentCone. Good luck learning your new found social skills.
[meta] The fact that someone moderated the parent comment to flame bait indicates that my thesis described above is 100% correct and that mindless fools abound here at slashdot. This isn't flame bait it's a slashdot dissident speaking freely. I have no respect for your silly moderations and neither should you if you support free speech.[/meta]
Slashdot Mirror
Sure a soldier gets a medal for valor while the people he murdered get put in graves and their families have to figure out how to survive. Yup, your Government State Mass Murderers doing good work every day.
>Imagine the benefits to the environment if we could just figure out a way to melt the ice caps completely. Our greenhouse emissions would plummet! How could we melt enough ice for a 20ft rise in sea levels? answers how with Nukes of course! Unfortunately boiling all that water will make the greenhouse effect worse since water vapor is 10 times worse than C02 as a greenhouse gas!!!
Actually if you boil the ice caps you'll release water vapor into the atmosphere which is a much more dangerous greenhouse gas than C02... of course you'll get the best of both since the boiling of that much water will take a lot of coal or trees or naturals gas being burned also creating some C02... but the water vapor created will really warm the planet up quickly.
Boiling Water Contributes to Greenhouse Effect - H2O vapor is ten times worse than CO2!
The government thinks it's doing good while most of the time it's not doing good at all.
It's a very bad idea to let the government folks have any more tracking capabilities than they already have.
Every little cookie crumb you let them track about you gives them more power over your lives. Before you know it they have the entire cookie jar to themselves, including the chocolate chips of freedom! Don't let the cookie monster get all your cookies. Bake a new batch and keep them to yourself and your family and friends. The government has enough cookies.
Yum.
Yes, now laptop computers can have a whole terabyte to get bashed around, lost and stolen! Yeah!
No, seriously it's Sweet Zombie Jesus level of coolness. Really.
A more in depth version of the post above: Open Source Science is the path through the dark into the new enlightenment. Yes, you feel certain that you are right about your science but lets see the actual data and the methods used by that science to prove that your certainty is justified.
Exactly!
When you "BELIEVE" science you're just another religion.
In fact, open source science is the BEST and ONLY WAY to avoid science from becoming the new religion as it has, for example, in the climate debates.
The scientific method is the tool for vetting the works of science and if the work of science is closed and secret and kept close to the scientists chests by refusals to share their data, methods, source codes, procedures, etc... then their work can't be verified and might as well be works of fiction just like those of any religious cleric or priest or nutter.
If you can't take others vetting your scientific work then maybe you don't belong in science?
Open Source Science raises the bar and will in the long run improve the quality of the science that is done. Some progress is being made, much more needs to be done.
Opening Science is the way forward, the path through the darkness, the endarkenment of closed source science.
If's it's paid by the public purse it must be OPEN data that anyone can see and audit.
Science is based upon the notion of being able to validate or invalidate in whole or in part the "claims" made by various "hypotheses" put forward.
When you "BELIEVE" science you're just another religion.
When you can't audit the work of scientists whose work is the basis of public policy then you and the public are being endarkened and kept excluded. But why? For what or whose agenda?
As long as the data, the methods, the algorithms, the statical analysis, the step by step procedures are kept secret the work is suspect to scientific fraud.
Have the guts to open your science to the light of day, it will in the end be better for it once it's vetted by more eyes and brains and math nuts and others poking holes in it.
ANY AND ALL CLAIMS MADE BY PEOPLE WHO KEEP THEIR SCIENCE CLOSED AND SECRET is suspect of FRAUD. What are they hiding? Are they simply embarrassed to admit that they might be wrong? That they've made mistakes? That they are afraid that others might gain an edge in the grant process and shut them out of funding?
Open Source Science is the way forward through the darkness into the light that empower verification and falsification and thus progress EITHER way!!!
This site has some excellent quotes and articles on the topic: http://www.pathstoknowledge.com./
"The meaning of the world is the separation of wish and fact." - KURT GÖDEL
"According to Peirce's doctrine of fallibilism, the conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of truth".
A guiding principle for accepting claims of catastrophic global events, miracles, incredible healing, invisible friends, or fill in the blank is:
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
"Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness." - Alfred Korzybski
"Science is a search for basic truths about the Universe, a search which develops statements that appear to describe how the Universe works, but which are subject to correction, revision, adjustment, or even outright rejection, upon the presentation of better or conflicting evidence." - James Randi
"Hypotheses are nets: only he who casts will catch." - Novalis
Actually that's a very good point, one of the best in this entire inane discussion...
If you want your software protected keep working on it! Nice.
Stale code become public domain and anyone is REALLY FREE to do what they want with it.
This is much like the one year ban on publishing data from science missions that sometimes happens... it let's the team of scientists who did the science get their papers written and then a year later every other scientist in the world gets access.
However, people could game the system by making bogus changes to keep a program copyrighted... so it's bound to fail... unless...
Ok, so the Public Domain isn't FREE Stallman? Clearly you're a total nut job Stallman!
Yes, you'd lose your base for enforcing the GPL with a five year copyright limit. Then the software would be free from your onerous restrictions that you've imposed upon it.
However, the PUBLIC DOMAIN IS FREEDOM BEYOND anything the GPL or Stallman would offer.
It's interesting that truly free licenses based upon Copyright such as the BSD variants of licenses (BSD, ISC, MIT, Apache, ...) wouldn't really be affected as they pretty much rely upon the good nature of the vast majority of people to share rather than forcing rules upon all just because a few might not want to share.
Public Domain is MORE FREE in every way than the GPL!
The best part is that it's unincorporated so there are no taxes, nor neighbors to speak of.
Do you ever play with your food?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R8PFvUZeLU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1lMEZgeyCA
Awesome place. Beautiful desolation. Cheap prices. Vacant land. Good views of Earth. Historic properties. Once in a lifetime chance to own a piece of history.
hey thanks for posting the link for the slides... this was the first place I looked before the googlizer...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Charms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCcPRroLgzE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VALrCj8xhU
All he proved was that the drove the distance, not that the client could have killed anyone. For that he'd have to have killed someone or sometwo. ;-}
What do you think the ink splotch is?
A completely bogus test that should be eliminated!
Good riddance.
The lamson project has a supposedly accidental VIRAL PAYLOAD AT http://launchpad.net/lamson in the file lamson-0.9.4.tar.gz with 7 copies of the "Virus identified I-Worm/Mydoom.BE";"Infected" virus and 1 "Trojan horse Dropper.Generic_c.GH" trojan horse reported by AVG.
Confirmed by hand.
Reported to Zed Shaw already who claims it was an accidental inclusion in spam test data.
It sounds like your company is highly conservative and being VERY VERY careful with any GPL'd code. Very wise given the fanaticism and legal capabilities of the GPL commune leadership.
You CAN USE GPL programs all you want in a company!!! They do it all the time!
It's when it comes to making changes that are "distributed" that the issues with the GPL come up. That's when it's important to be wise and to clench yourself tight to avoid being probed by the GNU Commune leadership.
Of course one can put a condom around the GPL code, meaning that if it's running in it's own process space and you only make minor changes to it that you don't care if the competition has then do so and share the changes made. If it's a library under GPL code a wrapper so it's a CLI program and use it that way, sharing the CLI program of course under the GPL (and BSD if you like). That's what a condom wrapper does, it protects you from the GPL Viral Infection.
Of course you'll see in my earlier posting that I did say that a company can get a direct license from the authors of a program that is under the GPL assuming that all the authors can agree. In Zed Shaw's case it's likely that he is the only author of his email program so getting a commercial non-GPL license isn't a problem for a company as he wants to do that.
The point is that as a strategy for making money putting stuff out under the GPL may not be such a good idea since commercial licensing alone might be better.
Of course he can do whatever the F he wants since it's his code and his choices and if they work for him all the better for him.
I just don't think it's the best strategy for maximizing profits to him.
I'm working on a number of projects including a new highly evolved version/implementation of an existing programming language. Now this language isn't the end in itself, the apps that I'm building are the goal that will make the money. The language itself may very well end up being under a BSD style license or a modified BSD with Commercial Use fees. However, a pure BSD license might still be better to build a community around the language as it will offer capabilities not available elsewhere.
It seems to me if one is able to let ones innovations and hard work out into the world for "free" then let it be free without restrictions. This excludes releasing under GPL restrictive style.
If one wants "control" and "fame" and "wealth" from ones software then choosing the GPL might be one of the strangest ways to accomplish that, certainly control and fame can come but wealth is a different thing.
If you rope in the vulture capitalists and do a reverse raking successfully without producing real world results then I suppose all the power to you or him but isn't that just a tiny Madeoff scheme?
When it comes to making money I prefer to keep the competitive advantage of keeping the source code closed for maximum advantage against the competition. It works for google and microsoft and oracle and ... and ... and ... and ... and ... and the list goes on.
Of course Google does release some systems open source but those are designed to set standards to make Google's overall competitive edge better. For example, Chrome browser is a classic example of a power program being in the BSD license maximizing an advantage for Google. It's BSD so that people adopt components of it such as the Native Client API (that replaces the antiquated Netscape Plugin API). This NCapi will only reach maximum adoption if all the browser companies provide it. Plus other reasons.
So, BSD is a viable approach.
In one successful case of BSD having an influence is that Microsoft adopted the BSD TCP/IP stack source code directly! This enabled Microsoft to join the standards that everyone was using quickly and effectively so that boxes running their software could interconnect better.
It's NOT always about the source code freedom once adopte
You have the software, and it's GPLed, and as long as you're a rock solid open source project who releases their code you are free to use it and do what you want with it. I love open source, but companies? Companies are going to have to pay from now on. That's how economics works. If it's good enough for you to use, why then it's good enough for you to pay for it.
I don't see how the GPL will help you with corporations dude. They'll avoid paying you cashola by providing the updates (if any) that they make to the code per the terms of the GPL.
Unless you add new terms above and beyond the GPL it won't help you dude.
So while I applaud your attempt to be "recognized" for your work by forcing the rules of the communistic GPL upon everyone it won't get the job of getting you the cashola done. If your lame email program is any good you might get a good reputation and that might get you work but that's quite indirect.
Now if you're planning on using the TOUGH rules of the GPL to be a carrot to businesses by saying that ONLY THEY will get the license where they don't have to follow the GPL but your extraspecial spicy commercial license fine, but they - as noted above - can always avoid that by using the GPL'd version and putting a Free Market License Condom around your viral GPL and then do what the heck they want with it (using it that is with minimal updates).
"Open source to open source, corporation to corporation" is a nice motto and I actually like it myself, but the GPL won't get you there dude. What would is a new license that is quite specific about your terms of doing business.
You seem pissed off, Zed, that when you put software out under permissive licenses that people used it. Well that's what is supposed to happen. It's clear that you don't have the free license spirit in you at all. It seems that you value recognition which is fine and part of your psychological makeup.
There is a movie with the title, "Born Free", where "a real-life couple who raised an orphaned lion cub to adulthood, and released her into the wilds of Kenya" and wonder if they will ever see "their" lions again, will they return?
It seems, Zed, that in your case your code isn't born free but is born out of your mind with hooks back to you, born out of your mind with loads of restrictions. All fine. As you said it's your right. I'm glad that you are finding your stand to take with your software projects and making the choices that you think will lead you towards what you want. I just think that given what you wrote the GPL isn't going to provide the answers unless you change the GPL towards your own ends twisting it's tortured soul (the GPL) towards commercially required payments to you.
So with Zed software isn't Born Free but is born out of his mind bending the tortured GPL towards goals that it's Commune Dictator didn't provide for. All that is fine. It's your choice.
I'd simply have gone for a commercial license that is free for personal use and any BSD like license can be adapted for that, after all the foundation of all these licenses (except the Public Domain non license) is Copyright which Zed has over his sole works to do with entirely as he pleases.
Good luck running a muck of the commune dude. May your success bring you fortune and fame you so desire.
BSD isn't for control freaks, it's for the Born Free crowd!
GPL IS for control freaks of the Maoist bent. Total Control of all aspects of how your software is used.
Commercial is for people who want to make a living. Enjoy Life.
Public Domain is for those that don't want any restrictions at all and for those that want to be beyond the rules of society.
Wow, bloody roads in New Zealand indeed! Maybe they've been watching too much Lord of the Rings, one bloody set of films...
Don't think of a pink ELEPHANT with bloody eyes. Oh, wait you just did think of it!
Don't think of crashing your car while driving seeing bloody eyes on highway sigh... oh wait you just did... smack...
Driving safe ads need to be carefully crafted so that you don't see a spike in accidents.
Anyone with half a brain or two times your brain capacity should know that saying "B is ten times less than the cost of A" means "B is one tenth the cost of A"!
Just like someone says "A is ten times more than B" you know they mean "A := B * 10".
Your just too literal minded ScanMan/RainMan ScentCone dude. English is a flexible language. Take you math nerd hat off for a change and a challenge in comprehening what others are saying to you rather than imposing your New World Order unto them.
Now all you need to do is to ask a clarifying question to make sure your "translation" into your narrowly focused math-nerd version of English meets your perfect way of talking. If they go yeah, that's what they meant then you've passed the primary Powel Janulus [who spoke over 80 human languages and was fluent in 50+ of them] test of communication, understanding others need not require perfect speach! You then become less of a math nerd to the outside world ScanMan/RainMan ScentCone. Good luck learning your new found social skills.
[meta] The fact that someone moderated the parent comment to flame bait indicates that my thesis described above is 100% correct and that mindless fools abound here at slashdot. This isn't flame bait it's a slashdot dissident speaking freely. I have no respect for your silly moderations and neither should you if you support free speech.[/meta]